HC Deb 07 July 1948 vol 453 cc538-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)

This is in some ways a unique occasion because it is only in very exceptional circumstances that we get the chance in this House to review and comment upon the work of those who really are our secret police though we often do not like to call them by that name. Whether or not these people are sane and sensible or foolish and romantic is rather more important than it used to be, for at the moment they can control the very livelihood of every liftman and every porter in the Air Ministry or indeed the livelihoods of any in any Ministry which may be affected with the same sort of purge mania. Therefore, this case of Colonel Tassoev is extremely important not only because of its foreign implications, but also because it exposes the abilities and the mentalities of those political doctors whose duty it is now and then to diagnose that particular. Japanese disease which is spreading amongst our Civil Service—dangerous thoughts.

This Adjournment Debate affects the activities of three Departments—the Special Branch of Scotland Yard, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, M.I. 6, which I think is the actual Department concerned, and M.I. 5 which is the one which the public always blame. They are really one and are very closely interlocked as is shown by the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is to speak for all three, and that that distinguished soldier, Sir Percy Sillitoe, who for so long has been associated with the Home Office, and is now a Director at the War Office, is in the United States conferring on foreign affairs with the State Department. Thus it will be seen that this is really an omnibus matter which I want to discuss.

The facts are really quite simple. So far as they are admitted by both sides it seems that on 23rd April of this year Colonel Tassoev, who was an Inspector in the Soviet Military Administration in Germany, disappeared. The last thing known about him was that he was in company with a gentleman called Clem. There are no political connotations in that. He was an American officer, an official of the United States Administration in Bremen. Nothing further was known of Colonel Tassoev until on 6th May the Foreign Office through the official spokesman made a statement, and I will quote it as it appeared in "The Times," on Friday, 7th May. This is what it said: There he met a friend and he decided to leave Bremen, and handed himself over to the British authorities with a view to obtaining permission to come to the United Kingdom. In accordance with the traditional British practice to give asylum to political refugees he has been accepted. We now know that on this very day Colonel Tassoev had been arrested and was confined in Hammersmith police station.

My first question to the Under-Secretary is: Why were the Foreign Office: allowed to issue this statement that Colonel Tassoev had been given asylum in accordance with the traditional British practice? Frankly, if at this moment he was in prison is not this a cynical way of putting the position.

It is now agreed by both sides that between 23rd April and 6th May he was staying in a flat, the property of the War Office, in Bishop Kings Road, Kensington. The Home Secretary said in answer to a Question on 17th June: He was temporarily accommodated in a flat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, I 7th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 70.] But thanks to the industry of the British Press we know it was a commodious place, a six-roomed affair kept by a certain Mrs. Wiggins and her 20 year old daughter, both of them employed by the War Office. According to the porter, Mr. W. Stockwell, who was interviewed by the "Daily Mail," the other inhabitants of the flat seemed to be a "cloak and dagger" brigade who were anxious that everyone, even the porter, should realise what secret business they were engaged on, for when answering the telephone in his presence they always replied "Military Intelligence speaking." According to other tenants of the flats below these gentlemen were in the habit of engaging in activities which can best be described as conviviality. These tenants said they heard "the noise of thumps and bumps as if these people were fighting amongst themselves." Except for the fact that everyone agrees that Colonel Tassoev stayed from 23rd or 24th April to 6th May at the Bishop Kings Road flat and that from 6th to 20th May he was imprisoned at the Hammersmith Police Station the stories put out by the British and Russian sides differ considerably.

According to the answer given to the House by the Home Secretary Colonel Tassoev was an alien who had not been given permission to land and was, therefore, liable to be detained under the Aliens Act. That of course is contrary to the view put forward by the Foreign Office who gave the impression that he was entitled to land and was accepted in the traditional form as a refugee. It is also quite contrary to the political correspondent of our own Labour newspaper, the "Daily Herald," Mr. Ewer, who on 5th May, scooping both the Foreign Office and "The Times," explained that Colonel Tassoev had gone into hiding while his application to come to this country was being considered.

According to the Home Secretary, Colonel Tassoev left this kindly household at Bishop Kings Road to go for a ride on a bus, and was thrown off the bus because he was not able to pay his fare. But if he was really a refugee, surely Mrs. Wiggins or Miss Betty Wiggins would have lent him a few pence for his fare. Is it suggested that having left the Soviet Union as a refugee he did not take the precaution of bringing any money with him? Is it in accordance with traditional British hospitality to lend him a six-roomed flat and yet not make him an allowance of a couple of shillings pocket money?

The question I want to ask my hon. friend is: Was Colonel Tassoev a guest or prisoner in this flat? Under what legal authority was he detained? How did he get into the country if formal leave to land was withheld? After all it is an offence to harbour anyone who is known to have entered illegally. Did his Department receive from Mrs. Wiggins, or any of her associates, information that an alien who had not been given permission to land, was being accommodated by them? If he did why did he not go and arrest him there and then? Why did he have to wait until Colonel Tassoev had left the flat? Is not the truth that Colonel Tassoev was there as a "ticket-of-leave man" to whom it was said "We will not pay any attention to the illegalities provided you stay in the flat"? If that was not the position, why are not proceedings being taken now against the people who brought Colonel Tassoev illegally into this country and hid him here? The matter is made much more remarkable by the breezy reply of the Foreign Secretary. Speaking on 9th June he said: I get a lot of these cases of people wanting to escape to England. It is not a bad country to which to escape. I have to deal with these cases every day. … I cannot hold a prolonged inquiry into every case."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 2163.] Very well, let us accept that, but let us have a broad statement of principle. Of course, Britain is not a bad country to escape to if one can get a six-roomed flat and be looked after by Mrs. Wiggins and then get a free trip home. But to whom is this generous offer open? To everyone? Are these six-room flats to be at the disposal of every type of refugee? Just now, there is a political trial in Portugal—I am trying to introduce something which I hope will not offend my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). Suppose there are some Portuguese refugees, will they be accommodated?

There are countries where persons of colour do not get all the rights of free citizens. If there is a deserter, a humble coloured private from the forces of such a country, will he be accommodated? What if a general deserted from Franco's army? [An HON. MEMBER: And Marshal Tito."] I cannot go through every country that might be affected. I agree we should respect the right of asylum in this country. It is very valuable that we should have it. It was a pity in the past in the case of Spanish refugees and anti-Fascists of that sort it was not more widely used. But until our housing problem is solved, it will be a little difficult if every refugee is to be entitled to a six-roomed flat.

We should have some clarification on this. Are we going to provide free accommodation to the deserters from all the forces of our late Allies? Perhaps we can be told a little bit more about what happened during those two weeks during which Colonel Tassoev was in the Hammersmith Police Station? When did he ask first to see the Soviet authorities? When were they first told he was here? And finally, so that we can follow this matter further, on what Votes are the costs of the various expenses involved in this affair borne.

To sum up, the Government story is that Colonel Tassoev came here voluntarily, changed his mind and was therefore sent back. The only reason it was said why he was imprisoned was that he had not secured permission to land. Whatever the truth, that seems at any rate to be the most improbable story. If he came here voluntarily, how did not the immigration authorities at the Home Office know about it when he landed and how did the "Daily Herald" get hold of the story that he waited in Germany until his application was granted and why did the Foreign Office say that in accordance with the traditional British practice of asylum, he was given permission to come here. If he was given permission to land, if he was a political refugee, how was he wandering around London without money? If he wanted to go back to the Soviet Union why was he kept two weeks in Hammersmith Police Station? Colonel Tassoev's story is different from that, and contains a number of grave charges which everyone would be most unwilling to accept. But it is far more logical and coherent than the stories which up to now have been put forward by the Government. Perhaps there is a whole new theory which will be disclosed tonight to explain the whole thing away but, at the moment, Colonel Tassoev's story requires a logical answer.

He says he was kidnapped and taken to London in a plane, which, he was told, belonged to Field Marshal Montgomery. If that was so, it explains why he so easily passed the immigration authorities. He says he was imprisoned in the Bishop Kings Road flat. That would tally with the point that he had no money and was found riding in a bus, presumably trying to escape. He says he escaped into Olympia. That would tie up with the story in the "Daily Mail" that attendants at Olympia had noticed a foreigner who was shouting something, and who was taken away by the police. He says he was continually pressed at Hammersmith Police Station to sign a statement, and was beaten up when he did not do so. That last is difficult to believe, but it would explain the two weeks' detention.

Unfortunately, in these Adjournment Debates we do not have at our disposal all the time we would like. But these are serious days. The future of the world depends on each of us doing our utmost to preserve peace. Whatever might happen in another war, it would certainly destroy this country completely. These are just the sort of incidents out of which international ill will grows, and which contain within themselves the seeds of another war. Nothing at the moment is more important than improving relations between this country and the Soviet Union. I hope when my hon. Friend replies he will do so in a sober way. If this is a misunderstanding it is a disagreeable one, and I hope he will exert his authority over the secret police and make certain that we do not have a competition in deserters from one side to the other. What we want now are better relations, not little scraps of information backed by a kidnapped and willing or half-willing individual.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)

I share also many doubts about this incident. I believe the Front Bench is gravely to blame, because it should have produced, long ago, a comprehensive statement about it which would have made it perfectly clear what really happened to Colonel Tassoev. I am bound to say, on the other hand, that in my view it is quite inconceivable that Colonel Tassoev has been brutally treated in this country. It is inconceivable that the implications made in the able and witty speech of my hon. Friend can be true, and I notice that he was not desirous of drawing those implications himself. But this is only one instance of a fundamental disability on the part of my own Front Bench, that they have some supporters who are prepared to tell the truth as they know it themselves, and to denounce Communist brutality.

Today in Malaya the Governor-General, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, has spoken of the fact that there is a Communist attempt, a terrorist attempt, to substitute for government of the people, by the people, for the people, government of the people by murderers for murderers. That is what is occurring in Malaya, but if one asks the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is any truth in the statement that there is Communist agitation, one gets no answer.

The same situation occurs here. We do not mind which way the facts go. We want to know what the facts are. It matters not whether the facts go in favour of the Communists or against them. On the benches opposite, if the facts go in favour of the Communists they do not want to hear the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On the benches on this side, in general, if the facts go it favour of the Communists they do not want to hear the facts. In my view, in general, people do not want to hear the facts unless the facts help one side or the other. It is vital that the facts should be stated by the Government, whichever way they go. I am now asking the Minister about this case, and saying that I am utterly dissatisfied with the Government version and begging the Government to tell the truth about the case of Colonel Tassoev.

12.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger)

I am sure all those present at Question Time on the numerous occasions when questions were asked on this subject, as well as those who are here tonight, will agree that whatever else this story has done it has given a good time to quite a lot of people. I, alone, suffer from the handicap of having rather more information, and therefore I am rather less able to give free flight to my imagination than most of the people who have previously contributed to this story. The sources from which I draw my information are perhaps more sober and less festive than the "Daily Mail"—a source from which I must say my hon. Friend would not normally get his information, nor would he give much credence to what he found there. He said he hoped I would produce a new version. I do not propose to produce a new version, but I hope to produce the connected statement for which many hon. Members have asked.

May I start by referring to what my hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said and which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). He said on 9th June that there were quite a lot of cases of people asking to be admitted to the United Kingdom—and that is indeed the case. Therefore, I would like to state what is the position of such persons under the Aliens Order, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy the House that the Colonel Tassoev case was handled in exactly the same way in which the cases of these people are handled, and that the only abnormal feature of this case was the very curious behaviour of Colonel Tassoev himself. He changed his mind, a thing, I believe, which has not occurred in the case of any other refugee arriving here in similar circumstances.

As the House knows, not every political refugee in Europe is able to come here just because he wishes to do so. Most hon. Members are familiar with the conditions on which people can come—through Ministry of Labour permits, in respect of compassionate reasons, etc. In addition to these, there are some limited classes who present themselves as political refugees to our representatives abroad in Europe. They claim that they have information to give which might be useful to us and they state their willingness to give it to us. Often it is much more convenient that they should give that information in the United Kingdom than at the point where they happen to present themselves to our representatives, and therefore there is some interest, on our side, in having them in this country. In such circumstances we know very little about them, except what they themselves say. We do not know what information they can or cannot give, and so, obviously, we are not prepared to accept them as prospective residents.

When they are here it is preferable in their own interest that we should have some kind of control over them so that at least we can be assured that, if necessary, they can be returned to the country from which they came. Under the Aliens Order this can perfectly appropriately be done. Under Article 1 (a) it is stated: Aliens shall not land in the United Kingdom without leave of the Immigration Officer and subsequently in Article 3 (4)—and that is the point which is of interest to us— Where leave to land is refused to an alien, the alien may, with the leave of the Immigration Officer, be placed temporarily on shore and detained at some place approved by the Secretary of State. Therefore, one does get what seems a curious situation—that people are refused leave to land, but nevertheless are physically in this country, sometimes for quite a considerable time. Particularly, of course, during the war, there were many thousands who came here in this way unheralded and unforeseen and were put on shore and kept. Though it is anomalous in a sense to refuse to land them and then to land them, it is a freely recognised procedure under the Aliens Order. Places approved by the Secretary of State are various. They include police stations and a number of prisons, but obviously such accommodation would not be suitable for ostensibly friendly persons brought here to give us information in a purely voluntary manner. Therefore certain other accommodation of a better type is provided, and the premises referred to are such approved premises. That explains legally how a man in this position can be brought here, technically refused permission to land, and accommodated in such premises.

Colonel Tassoev was, I believe, the head or a senior official of the Soviet Reparations Commission in Bremen, and on 23rd April he indicated unofficially to an American official that he would like to part from his own authorities. He stated his readiness to give information and come to the United Kingdom to give it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

In writing?

Mr. Younger

As far as I know there was nothing in writing, but I cannot say for certain. He did come to this country, and on arrival here he was refused leave to land under the procedure I have described. Meantime, by the time he got here, the Soviet accusations that he had been kidnapped had already been published. It was obviously important that, if possible, these should be refuted, and he said that he would be willing to confront the Soviet authorities so that they should see that he had not been kidnapped. He was flown back to Germany, but when he got there—and this was the first of several occasions when he changed his mind—he was not willing to face his own authorities, and so was flown back within 48 hours, and was back under the same conditions.

At that time, and for quite a long time afterwards, there was no reason to suppose that he was not what he claimed to be, a voluntary refugee coming to us, and willing to give us information. That was so right up to the moment when he walked out of the flat where he was accommodated, quite unexpectedly and unhindered, because he was not under any sort of close guard. He was there on refusal of leave to land, which did not give him the right to be at large, but it was not the same thing as being in a prison.

I need not go into the details of what he says he did from the moment he walked out of the flat until he came within our control again. The story of Olympia which appears in his statement was given frequently in the Press. He was in a very excited state at Olympia. He was quite unintelligible to people. No one understood him except one Polish citizen, and it was not unnatural that the police should take him to Hammersmith Police Station to find out who he was. He was arrested on that occasion, and taken to the police station, and the authority on which he was detained was the refusal of leave to land, under the Aliens Order. He remained in an excited state for some time. The police succeeded in identifying him, and it was after that stage that he claimed that he wished to return to the Soviet authorities.

Obviously this position was somewhat difficult in view of the mental condition in which he was. It was very uncertain what should be thought of him. He had already been here a fortnight, making no sort of protest, apparently perfectly content. He had been well treated. I should like to deny any suggestion that there was any ill-treatment. He was in very comfortable circumstances. It was uncertain, on the one hand, whether he really wanted to go back, or whether he would change his mind again. It was a fairly risky decision, to say the least, on his part to go back to his own authorities, and I think we should not have been justified if we had instantly put him on a 'plane to take him back at that moment. We were not certain whether he really wanted to go back or would change his mind. His behaviour at Olympia showed he was in an unstable condition.

On the other hand, there was the possibility that he had come in bad faith and never intended to give us any information. I think we were entitled to find out just what was behind it all. He was given a little time for reflection on his part and we had a little time for inquiry on ours. But when we were satisfied that he really wanted, for whatever reason, to go back to the Soviet authorities in Germany, it was decided that arrangements should be made to return him and to hand him over to the Soviet authorities. So far as we are concerned, that is the last we know of him.

I should like to emphasise this. Colonel Tassoev contacted the United States authorities voluntarily. He came to the United Kingdom voluntarily. While here he was well treated, subject to no duress, let alone any form of violence. He was always in the care of persons operating under the due authority of Ministers. Had he not changed his mind his circumstances would have been just the same as those of other people who had come in this way and whose permanent situation has been regulated, and who have been allowed to stay here. It is not our fault that unfounded allegations have been made by interested sources in Germany, and that rumours have gone round. I think it is to the credit of the British authorities that, despite the risk of the capital that could thus be made by such interested sources, they placed no obstacle in the way of the return of Colonel Tassoev when he wanted to return.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjournd the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes to One o'Clock.